Text Size

Stardrive

Tag » Dark Energy
 
  1. · Share
    • Jack Sarfatti Addressing some of Jim Woodward's key objections. (some key equation jpgs from original missing here - too lazy now to put them in)

      Let's work some elementary toy models.

      Start with the static LNIF class of detectors


      the proper acceleration is

      g ~ gtt^-1/2dgtt/dr

      1) gtt = 1 - rs/r

      rs/r < 1

      Let the source be at r ---> infinity, therefore gtt(source) ~ 1

      1 + z = (1 - rs/r)^1/2 < 1 BLUE SHIFT

      Both retarded and advanced radiation will seem to work in exactly the same way because the static metric is time symmetric.

      Homework problem 1
      Reverse roles of source and detector to get a red shift.

      2) simple de Sitter space. Note our future universe approaches this metric, our past universe is not at all de Sitter. You cannot model our past particle horizon with a de Sitter metric in our early universe.

      gtt = 1 - r^2/A

      this is observer-dependent.

      The detector INSIDE the horizon is at r = 0 where gtt = 1

      Let, the emitter be near the horizon a distance Lp from it as in Lenny Susskind's stretched membrane model

      First of all now we see we have a red shift because for all r

      1 + z = (1 - r^2/A)^-1/2 > 1

      In particular, for the stretched membrane

      r ~ A^1/2 - Lp

      1 + z = (1 - (A - 2A^1/2Lp + Lp^2)/A)^-1/2

      where Lp^2/A << 1

      1 + z ~ + (Lp/A^1/2)^-1/2 = (A^1/2/Lp)^1/2 = femit/fobsv >> 1

      Suppose further that

      femit = c/Lp

      Therefore,

      fobsv = femit(Lp/A^1/2)^1/2 = (c/Lp)(Lp/A^1/2)^1/2 = c/(LpA^1/2)^1/2

      i.e. c/(Geometric mean of shortest and longest length scales)

      This red shift is for retarded radiation from a past de Sitter horizon and/or

      advanced radiation from a future de Sitter horizon.

      However, we do not have a past de Sitter horizon.

      The Unruh temperature for c/(LpA^1/2)^1/2 via Stefan-Boltzmann law gives precisely the observed dark energy density hc/Lp^2A.

      However, to get w = -1 ZPF at r = 0 and to fit the facts, this must be advanced red shifted Wheeler-Feynman Hawking-Unruh radiation of energy density hc/Lp^4 on our future horizon.

      Jim Woodward's blue shift is a different concurrent effect from

      This will be a relatively small co-moving cosmological blue shift subtraction from the dominant acceleration = gravity (EEP) red shift.

      Note that as is intuitively obvious from Tamara Davis's horizon diagram below

      (A^1/2/Lp)^1/2 ~ (10^29/10^-33)^1/2 ~ 10^31 >> anow/athen

      That is, there is no way a cosmological blue shift of the advanced radiation can over power this huge gravity red shift on the stretched horizon.

      There are several causes of frequency shift, cosmological, peculiar velocity, gravity-acceleration.

      In the case of retarded radiation from us in the accelerating actual universe, the cosmological redshift would be super-imposed on the acceleration blue shift for the static LNIF. The latter will dominate because of gtt^-1/2 --> infinity classically at our future horizon's intersection with the emitter's future light cone that happens at a finite-comoving distance.

      Also if you look at Hawking's paper and compare it with Tamara Davis's diagram, it's obvious that no retarded radiation can ever reach us from our future dark energy horizon. Yet, Hawking says we can see horizon radiation. Therefore, it would follow that the horizon radiation we see is net advanced Wheeler-Feynman radiation.
  2. Friends
    See All
    • Burton Lee
    • Richard Lubbock
    • Tenzin Gyeltsen
    • Philip Noicon Move
    • Joseph Nechvatal
    • Stewart Swerdlow
    • Jonathan Vos Post
    • Usman Zaheer

We recede from our past particle horizon, but we approach our future event horizon. Therefore, retarded radiation in our past light cone is cosmologically red shifted.

Advanced radiation in our past light cone is cosmologically blue shifted.

However, because the effective available space between us and our future horizon is contracting - even though space as a whole is speeding up in its expansion from the anti-gravity dark energy (virtual bosons w = -1), it follows that

Retarded radiation on our future light cone is blue shifted at our future horizon.

Advanced radiation from our future horizon to us at r = 0 is redshifted because it sees available space expanding backwards in time.

Also when you use the static LNIF representation

g00 = 1 - r^2/A

the gravity red shift of hc/Lp^4 Hawking radiation at r = A^1/2 - Lp is the observed dark energy density of hc/Lp^2A at the r = 0 detector.

This is the best of all possible explanations of the dark energy rooted in the Wheeler-Feynman idea.

OK, Jim here is the answer. We are getting closer to our future horizon in co-moving distance as cosmic time from the inflation -> hot big bang goes on.

Looking at Tamara Davis's causal diamond picture. Uncompensated advanced Wheeler-Feynman black body radiation back from our future horizon to us starts at a(then) ~ 8 billion light years

It reaches us at about

a(now) ~ 14 billion light years



~ 14/8 ~ 7/4 ~ 1.75  > 1

But this co-moving geodesic LIF cosmological redshift is still small compared to the much larger off-geodesic static LNIF gravity redshift of order

1 + z' ~ 10^123 >> 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift



So in that sense, the co-moving distance to the future horizon is contracting for retarded radiation from us to our future horizon - hence blue shift for it. The opposite for back from the future Hawking radiation from our future horizon to us - hence red shift for it.


Begin forwarded message:

From: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: the redshift or blueshift depends on the total experimental arrang ement.
Date: March 29, 2013 12:28:50 AM PDT
To: "jfwoodward@juno.com" <jfwoodward@juno.com>


On Mar 29, 2013, at 12:11 AM, "jfwoodward@juno.com" <jfwoodward@juno.com> wrote:

If that is so Jack, what you have is a compelling argument against Hawking radiation, the advanced part anyway, having anything to do with our present.  In the static LNIF rep

gtt = 1 - r^2/A

is TIME SYMMETRIC - WORKS SAME WAY FOR RETARDED & ADVANCED.

and with that metric, which only is in our future not in our past we get

hc/Lp^4 on the future horizon r = A^1/2 - Lp redshifts down to the observed dark energy density hc/Lp^2A

that is simple mathematics from




For the blue shifting of advanced radiation is a consequence ONLY of the fact that the radiation passes from expanded space to more compact space in transit, causing the wavelength of the radiation to decrease.  It has nothing to do with the circumstances of emission.

In fact its just the opposite inside our causal diamond observable patch of the multiverse.

The electron-positron pairs stuck on our relative horizon have enormous proper accelerations c^2/Lp, the horizon is not expanding at all away from us, it's at fixed r = A^1/2 - Lp from us. It has nothing directly to do with expanding space in this conformal diagram. In fact, we are getting closer in co-moving distance to our future horizon whilst receding away from our past horizon.




The way you can salvage your argument is to claim that Hawking radiation (retarded) from our past cosmic horizon is redshifted and so on.

No, that does not work at all. Our past metric is nothing like de Sitter and hc/Lp^2A is way too big in the past because A is smaller!

A approaches a fixed asymptote (middle solid curve below)




On Mar 28, 2013, at 5:32 PM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:


Begin forwarded message:

From: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
Subject: the redshift or blueshift depends on the total experimental arrangement.
Date: March 28, 2013 5:19:43 PM PDT
To: "PhysicsFellows-request@mail.softcafe.net" <PhysicsFellows-request@mail.softcafe.net>
Bcc: james Woodward <jfwoodward@juno.com>

Jim

Bottom line, is that it looks like there are two competing effects for the advanced waves.

I. Your dynamic co-moving LIF back-from-the-future blue shift

II. My static LNIF advanced red shift.

with II >> I

For the co-moving metric detectors

1 + z = femit/fobs   definition.

1 + z = anow/athen  derivation from the co-moving metric for null geodesics



k = 0

1) retarded spherical waves of positive frequency in an expanding universe

Therefore, then = emit be in our past.

now = obsv

1 +  zret = anow/athen

1 + zret = > 1  retarded co-moving LIF red shift

2) advanced spherical waves of positive frequency in an expanding universe coming back from the future to now from a co-moving emitter to a co-moving receiver

1 + zadv = femit/fobs = anow/athen < 1   advanced co-moving LIF blue shift

Which was what you said.

The situation is different for static LNIF detectors in which the far future metric in de Sitter space for our accelerating dark energy universe is

ds^2 ~ -c^2(1 - r^2/A)dt^2 + (1 - r^2/A)^-1dr^2 + ...

we are at r = 0 and the proper acceleration of the detector at fixed r is

g(r) ~ g00^-1/2dg00/dr

g00 ~ 1 - r^2/A g(future horizon) -> infinity classically in fact it's large and finite c^2/Lp ~ 10^54 cm/sec^2 from the Planck cut off  Now in fact the virtual electron positron pairs are stuck on this horizon relative to us at r = 0. They have plenty of energy from their local thermal bath of Unruh photons to become real pairs relative to us.

They will Hawking radiate advanced waves to us from r = A^-1/2 to us at r = 0 at their local temperature of

T = hg/ckB = hc/LpkB


Now use the time symmetric static LNIF redshift formula starting from r = A^1/2 - Lp emission to r = 0 US reception.

<e674bae4544742b5f8d788e8dd76bfc1.png>

The redshifted result is

T' = hc/(LpA^1/2)^1/2

Using the Stefan Boltzmann law this is an energy density ~ T'^4, i.e. hc/Lp^2A exactly as observed for the dark energy density.

Since we at r = 0 have zero proper acceleration, we see this energy as w = -1 virtual photons of mean frequency c/(LpA^1/2)^1/2 rather than the w = + 1/3 real photons.

So we have TWO effects simultaneously.

Yes, there will I think be a small LIF blue shift correction to the much larger static LNIF advanced redshift.

1 + zadv = femit/fobs = anow/athen < 1   advanced co-moving LIF blue shift

However,  anow/athen is of order unity, i.e. 46/55. You can see we are at about 46 billion light years from Alpha creation in Penrose conformal time. Our future light cone intersects our future event horizon at roughly 55 billion light years. We have to look at the de Sitter metric in conformal time and then do a calculation of the usual anow/athen. I need to check this more carefully of course. Right now I assumed that a(t) is linear in Penrose conformal time, but this may be mistaken.

Jack Sarfatti
Red Shift? Blue Shift? Both?
Jack Sarfatti Not sure of this yet

Begin forwarded message:

From: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>

Subject: the redshift or blueshift depends on the total experimental arrangement.
Date: March 28, 2013 5:19:43 PM PDT
To: "PhysicsFellows-request@mail.softcafe.net" <PhysicsFellows-request@mail.softcafe.net>
Bcc: james Woodward <jfwoodward@juno.com>

Jim

Bottom line, is that it looks like there are two competing effects for the advanced waves.

I. Your dynamic co-moving LIF back-from-the-future blue shift

II. My static LNIF advanced red shift.

with II >> I

For the co-moving metric detectors
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/9/0/e90d3b510ad6906ca4a3d96297b4a52e.png
1 + z = femit/fobs definition.

1 + z = anow/athen derivation from the co-moving metric for null geodesics

k = 0

1) retarded spherical waves of positive frequency in an expanding universe

Therefore, then = emit be in our past.

now = obsv

1 + zret = anow/athen

1 + zret = > 1 retarded co-moving LIF red shift

2) advanced spherical waves of positive frequency in an expanding universe coming back from the future to now from a co-moving emitter to a co-moving receiver

1 + zadv = femit/fobs = anow/athen < 1 advanced co-moving LIF blue shift

Which was what you said.

The situation is different for static LNIF detectors in which the far future metric in de Sitter space for our accelerating dark energy universe is

ds^2 ~ -c^2(1 - r^2/A)dt^2 + (1 - r^2/A)^-1dr^2 + ...

we are at r = 0 and the proper acceleration of the detector at fixed r is

g(r) ~ g00^-1/2dg00/dr

g00 ~ 1 - r^2/A

g(future horizon) -> infinity classically

in fact it's large and finite c^2/Lp ~ 10^54 cm/sec^2 from the Planck cut off

Now in fact the virtual electron positron pairs are stuck on this horizon relative to us at r = 0. They have plenty of energy from their local thermal bath of Unruh photons to become real pairs relative to us.

They will Hawking radiate advanced waves to us from r = A^-1/2 to us at r = 0 at their local temperature of

T = hg/ckB = hc/LpkB

Now use the time symmetric static LNIF redshift formula starting from r = A^1/2 - Lp emission to r = 0 US reception.

The redshifted result is

T' = hc/(LpA^1/2)^1/2

Using the Stefan Boltzmann law this is an energy density ~ T'^4, i.e. hc/Lp^2A exactly as observed for the dark energy density.

Since we at r = 0 have zero proper acceleration, we see this energy as w = -1 virtual photons of mean frequency c/(LpA^1/2)^1/2 rather than the w = + 1/3 real photons.

So we have TWO effects simultaneously.

Yes, there will I think be a small LIF blue shift correction to the much larger static LNIF advanced redshift.

1 + zadv = femit/fobsv = anow/athen < 1 advanced co-moving LIF blue shift
http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=hT2Wzkc2PhBr1M&tbnid=35ICO5P_Nhx5SM:&ved=&url=http://stardrive.org/stardrive/index.php/blog/back-from-the-future-cosmological-event-horizon-retrocausal-emergent-gravity-.html&ei=deJUUf-aB4fWiALyk4FY&bvm=bv.44442042,d.cGE&psig=AFQjCNHO9D0_cEisU48JMBoBAY_8NHElkQ&ust=1364603880981307
However, anow/athen is of order unity, i.e. 46/55. You can see we are at about 46 billion light years from Alpha creation in Penrose conformal time. Our future light cone intersects our future event horizon at roughly 55 billion light years. We have to look at the de Sitter metric in conformal time and then do a calculation of the usual anow/athen. I need to check this more carefully of course. Right now I assumed that a(t) is linear in Penrose conformal time, but this may be mistaken.

For discussion
"The researchers conducted a mirror experiment to show that by changing the position of the mirror in a vacuum, virtual particles can be transformed into real photons that can be experimentally observed. In a vacuum, there is energy and noise, the existence of which follows the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130226092128.htm?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

I use the inverse argument to the above in my argument that the dark energy accelerating the universe is cosmic redshifted advanced Wheeler-Feynman real photon thermal Hawking-Unruh radiation back from our future cosmic event horizon (Lp thick) of energy density hc/Lp^4 that appears as virtual photons with ~ 10^-122 smaller energy density hc/Lp^2A in our detectors from Type 1a supernovae. A = area-entropy of our future light cone's intersection with our observer-dependent de Sitter future horizon (also applies to Type 1a supernovae in the past light cones of our telescopes).


&

On CCC-predicted concentric low-variance circles in the CMB sky
V. G. Gurzadyan1 and R. Penrose2
1 Alikhanian National Laboratory and Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia
2 Mathematical Institute, 24-29 St Giles, Oxford OX1 3LB, U.K
Received: date / Revised version: date
Abstract. A new analysis of the CMB, using WMAP data, supports earlier indications of non-Gaussian features of concentric circles of low temperature variance. Conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) predicts such features from supermassive black-hole encounters in an aeon preceding our Big Bang. The significance of individual low-variance circles in the true data has been disputed; yet a recent independent analysis has confirmed CCC’s expectation that CMB circles have a non-Gaussian temperature distribution. Here we
examine concentric sets of low-variance circular rings in the WMAP data, finding a highly non-isotropic distribution. A new “sky-twist” procedure, directly analysing WMAP data, without appeal to simulations, shows that the prevalence of these concentric sets depends on the rings being circular, rather than even slightly elliptical, numbers dropping off dramatically with increasing ellipticity. This is consistent with CCC’s expectations; so also is the crucial fact that whereas some of the rings’ radii are found to reach around
15◦, none exceed 20◦. The non-isotropic distribution of the concentric sets may be linked to previously known anomalous and non-Gaussian CMB features.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130226092128.htm?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Conference: TAM2013 - Venice

Submitted by: SARFATTI, Jack

Submitted on: 12 December 2012 00:32

Title: Dark Energy as Redshifted Advanced Wheeler-Feynman Hawking-
  Unruh Thermal Radiation

Abstract content
The observed anti-gravity repulsive dark energy density hc/Lp^2A where A is the area of our observer detector dependent de Sitter future event horizon at its intersection with the detector's future light cone is proved to be the cosmological redshift of the quantum field theoretic energy density hc/Lp^4 on that horizon. The effective redshifted Hawking-Unruh temperature at our detectors is hc/kBLp^1/2A^1/4. The real thermal advanced photons from our future horizon are maximally redshifted down to virtual photons of energy hc/Lp^1/2A^1/4. The calculation may be extended to include ordinary retarded photon signals in our detector's past light cone from Type 1a supernovae because the area A of the future horizon has an asymptote. Larger redshifts should show the cosmic time dependence of A as a test of this model. I suggest that gravity attractive dark matter is a vacuum polarization effect. Therefore, real on-shell exotic dark matter particles do not exist as a matter of principle.

Summary
The observed dark energy density hc/Lp^2A where A is the area of our observer detector dependent de Sitter future event horizon at its intersection with the detector's future light cone is computed from elementary battle-tested physics. In addition, it is predicted that real dark matter particles do not exist as a matter of fundamental principle. Dark matter is a vacuum polarization effect.

Primary Authors:
Dr. SARFATTI, Jack (Internet Science Education Project) <adastra1@icloud.com>

 

  1. @creon: @JackSarfatti Haha! no superparticles, no dark matter particles.... what could it be ;-?
    This is good news for my explanation of dark matter as virtual fermion anti fermion pairs and dark energy as virtual bosons both inside the vacuum.
    Like · · Share
    • Gareth Lee Meredith I've been particularly drawn recently to the Einstein-Cartan model for as you will know, implementing the torsion fields in relativity as perhaps also an explanation towards other gravitational effects.
    • Jack Sarfatti There is no evidence for torsion independent of curvature as yet though it's a beautiful extension and it should be there, but it ain't. Similarly, supersymmetry is beautiful. It is the Dirac square root of translations, which when locally gauged are Einstein's general coordinate transformations corresponding to locally coincident non-inertial accelerating frames. Mathematical beauty does not ensure physical fact.
    • Jack Sarfatti God is both subtle & malicious! ;-)
PS
Jack Sarfatti hc/Lp^4 on our future horizon is down shifted to hc/Lp^2A at our present detectors and the Arrow of Time is also explained trivially. A is the area of the intersection of our future light cone with our future de Sitter horizon. The Arrow of Time is simply A(future horizon) - A(past horizon) > 0.
Jack Sarfatti likes a link.
www.scientificamerican.com
The "time tunnel into the distant past" gives us a glimpse of galaxies as they looked up to 13.2 billion years ago
"}">Like · · Share
  • Steven Sequeira Wow... Thank you, Jack!
  • Jack Sarfatti Dark energy in contrast is a time tunnel to our future cosmological event horizon - advanced Wheeler-Feynman-Hawking black body radiation real photons red shifted all the way down to virtual photons inside the vacuum. Virtual photons generate the anti-gravity field that is accelerating the expansion speed of 3D space seen in Type 1a supernovae anomalous redshifts in our past light cone.


Light hadron masses from lattice QCD
Reviews of Modern Physics – April - June 2012 Volume 84, Issue 2


Zoltan Fodor and Christian Hoelbling
One of the most basic tests of quantum chromodynamics in the strong coupling regime is whether it can successfully predict the spectrum of light hadron masses in terms of a small number of inputs. This article surveys the status of lattice calculations of the spectrum, including the formalism, theoretical uncertainties, and current results. The calculations successfully reproduce relevant parts of the observed spectrum at the percent level.
Published 4 April 2012 (47 pages)
pp. 449-495 [View PDF (1,712 kB)]

So who needs Mach’s Principle for the origin of inertia?

Bearing in mind Basil Hiley’s remark:

To build in wholeness in this preliminary way, we stressed in the UU that the "particle and the field were never separate".  Here we were motivated by the work of Frederick Frank at Bristol and Bilby and his co-workers at Sheffield.  They had been exploring the geometry of continuous dislocations in crystals and had shown that the equation of migration of dislocation was similar to a relativistic particle dynamics which involved the speed of sound rather than the speed of light. Furthermore the stress forces in the lattice had a similar form to electromagnetic fields.  Notice you can't separate the particle from the field: no lattice, no particle implies no field, no particle.  We do not give any meaning to the statement that 'the particle is in one of the wave packets'. That is, questions about "empty wave packets" has no meaning in the structure we had in mind.



Gaussian quantum information
Christian Weedbrook, Stefano Pirandola, Raúl García-Patrón, Nicolas J. Cerf, Timothy C. Ralph, Jeffrey H. Shapiro, and Seth Lloyd
Quantum information processing and communication protocols are typically expressed in terms of discrete units of information, the quantum bits (or qubits). However, certain experimental setups involving, for instance, light or atomic ensembles, are based on continuous quantum system and, in particular, on Gaussian states and operations. This review adapts the main ideas and protocols in the field of quantum information to such systems, and explains their advantages and limitations.
Published 1 May 2012 (49 pages)
pp. 621-669 [View PDF (1,385 kB)]

Glauber states are displaced Gaussians in the phase space of the quantum oscillator normal mode.

Theoretical aspects of massive gravity
Kurt Hinterbichler
The discovery that the expansion rate of the Universe is accelerating, perhaps due to a nonzero and very small cosmological constant, has led to many speculations regarding modifications to the long distance structure of general relativity. This review discusses modifications which generate a mass for the graviton from a theoretical point of view and includes a treatment of diffeomorphism invariance, interactions, and the low-energy effective field theory treatment of such theories.
Published 7 May 2012 (40 pages)
pp. 671-710 [View PDF (758 kB)]

Dual pairing of symmetry and dynamical groups in physics
D. J. Rowe, M. J. Carvalho, and J. Repka
Symmetries, group theory, and the related theory of Lie algebras underlie quantum mechanics and provide the essential language for the interpretation of physical phenomena. This review discusses foundations and applications of dual representations of pairs of symmetry and dynamical groups primarily in atomic and nuclear physics, especially in the context of bosonic and fermionic many-body systems such as superconductors, molecules, and nuclei. By studying such dual subgroup chains, associations of phenomenological many-body models with microscopic approaches are revealed.
Published 11 May 2012 (47 pages)
pp. 711-757 [View PDF (1,104 kB)]

Colloquium: Supersolids: What and where are they?
Massimo Boninsegni and Nikolay V. Prokof’ev
Supersolid is the name of an exotic quantum phase of matter, combining the seemingly antithetical properties of crystal and superfluid phases. This phase is expected to exist in rather extreme circumstances, for example, in solid helium near absolute zero. Indeed, claims of its experimental observation have been made. This Colloquium reviews the bulk of the existing phenomenology and offers an interpretation of it, based on theoretical results of first principle computer simulations. Other physical systems in which the supersolid phase might be observed in the laboratory are also described.
Published 11 May 2012 (18 pages)
pp. 759-776 [View PDF (861 kB)]

I predicted super solids before Tony Leggett I think? See my publication list on Wikipedia.

Multiphoton entanglement and interferometry
Jian-Wei Pan, Zeng-Bing Chen, Chao-Yang Lu, Harald Weinfurter, Anton Zeilinger, and Marek Żukowski
Light is made out of photons, which now can be efficiently created, manipulated, and detected. This provides us with the possibility of testing several fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics, ranging from the quantization of energy to the superposition principle, or the violation of Bell inequalities. Also, the degree of control that has been achieved over the properties of the photons has opened up a broad spectrum of applications in the context of quantum information science. This review provides an introduction to multiphoton systems, with an emphasis on their entanglement properties. It also contains an exposition of the fundamental tests that have been carried so far with such systems, as well as the key experiments on quantum communication and computation.
Published 11 May 2012 (62 pages)
pp. 777-838 [View PDF (4,466 kB)]


How higher-spin gravity surpasses the spin-two barrier
Xavier Bekaert, Nicolas Boulanger, and Per A. Sundell
Gauge theories mediate forces through particle of spin one while the gravitational force is mediated through particles of spin two. It has long been thought that there are no consistent theories with fundamental particles of spin greater than 2, but recent constructions show that while this standard lore is probably true in flat spacetimes, spaces with constant curvature that occur in the presence of a cosmological constant provide a loophole that allows construction of consistent higher-spin generalizations of gravity. This review explains the original no-go results in flat space and then discusses the construction of higher-spin theories in backgrounds with a cosmological constant.
Published 3 July 2012 (23 pages)
pp. 987-1009 [View PDF (453 kB)]

In my gauge theory of gravity, the basic LIF tetrads are compensating spin 1 vector fields from localizing the universal space-time symmetry group for all matter fields. Einstein’s spin 2 gravity would be something analogous to a Cooper pair, i.e. an entangled triplet of a pair of spin 1 quanta with S-state orbital. Of course “graviton" higher spin states with P, D ... orbitals are conceivable. Of course a Cooper pair of spin 1/2 electrons are bound by spin 0 phonons - what binds the gravity tetrads into a pair?
Self interaction? Virtual spin 0 Higgs?


On Jul 14, 2012, at 5:06 PM, MPOGO@aol.com wrote:

Jack,
 
Very much appreciated your online explanation that the Higgs field is made up of virtual Higgs Bosons, and that you have to "hit" the vacuum with 100s of GeV energy to materialize a Higgs in real space.
 
If the Higgs field is the source of inertial mass, and gravitation mass is equal to inertial mass from the equivalence principle, then is the Higgs field also the source of gravity?  I think this would require the Higgs field "viscosity to become anisotropic, making easer for a particle to accelerate towards a mass then away from one.
 
What does the master think? :)
 
Mark


Definitely a good question. One must include the stress-energy tensor Tuv

Scalar field
Main article: Klein–Gordon equation
The stress-energy tensor for a scalar field  which satisfies the Klein–Gordon equation is

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/1/f/c/1fcdac70037e6a41532326d76c96d42a.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress–energy_tensor

where phi is the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs-Goldstone Glauber coherent state of huge but uncertain numbers of virtual massive Higgs and virtual massless Goldstone all in the same cell of phase space of volume h^3.
of the spin 0 Higgs field into Einstein’s field equation

Guv + (8piG/c^4)Tuv = 0

where now m ~ 125 Gev

Note that the second term in Tuv has the form of Einstein’s cosmological constant / with

/ ~ (10^28 cm)^-1 = (125 Gev)|vacuum superconductor expectation value of Higgs-Goldstone field|^2

This is an interesting quantitative formula.

/^-1 = area of our future event horizon in Tamara Davis’s conformal time  diagram

with the anti-gravity DARK ENERGY DENSITY = hc//Lp^2 = redshifted advanced Wheeler-Feynman Hawking-Unruh black body radiation from our future de Sitter event horizon.

Note also

Physicists Propose Building a Crystal of Space-Time
www.popsci.com
One of the simplest and most common physical objects is your average crystal, a collection of atoms arranged in an orderly, repeating three-dimensional pattern. Salt, snowflakes, and the quartz in your watch are all crystals. Earlier this year, the Nobel laureate and MIT physicist Frank Wilczek prop...
Like · · Share
Alissa Mower Clough likes this.

Jack Sarfatti
There is a very intuitive though not simple way to understand the space-time crystal.

1) spontaneous broken symmetry in complex many particle systems. These are quantum phase transitions like when our observable universe is created in the moment of inflation out of the pre-existing unstable false vacuum in which all particles have zero rest mass because the Higgs field had not yet formed. The appearance of the Higgs field is the effect spontaneous broken symmetry in which the post-inflation quantum vacuum of our expanding universe. The quantum vacuum has less symmetry than do the field equations for some of the matter fields.

2) Quantum field theory shows that matter exists in two very different forms - real and virtual. Matter in virtual form lives inside the quantum vacuum briefly popping into and out of existence. We see this indirectly in small shifts of spectral lines of atoms (Lamb shift) and in the Casimir zero point force between two neutral plates. Virtual particles do not transport energy outside the "near field" and they cannot directly cause a counter to click only real particles can do that. The LHC just showed us a real Higgs boson kicked out of the vacuum by the tremendous focused energy of the machine. It's like chipping a small piece of ice out of a huge glacier that is the VIRTUAL Higgs-Goldstone spontaneous broken symmetry field inside the vacuum. There are two kinds of spontaneous broken symmetry particles. The Goldstone particle has zero rest mass like the photon particle of light. The Higgs particle has a finite rest mass now seen at about 125 Gev in the LHC. There may be several Higgs and Goldstone particles. The Higgs and Goldstone particles come in conjugate pairs like the amplitude and phase of a coherent laser beam wave. In fact the Higgs-Goldstone vacuum field is mathematically somewhat similar to a laser beam field with some important differences of course. The mathematics of these general "coherent states" was worked out in the early 1960's by Nobel Laureate Harvard physics professor Roy Glauber. Basically we have a large number of particles all in the same single-particle quantum state although that actual number is uncertain and in the simplest case has a Poisson distribution.This happens not only in lasers but in superconductors and as we see below even in Frank Wilczek's space-time crystal. The difference is that the Higgs vacuum field that itself gives rest masses to the leptons and quarks is made up of huge numbers of VIRTUAL Higgs-Goldstone conjugate particle pairs that form a set of complex numbers z in the polar representation for those of you who know some high school math where z = Rexp(itheta). R is the amplitude and theta is the phase. The massive Higgs particle in real form are quantized vibrations in the amplitude R like you AM radio. The massless Goldstone particles in real form are quantized vibrations in the phase theta of the coherent vacuum field like your FM radio roughly.

3) A space crystal is a periodic lattice of atoms that forms in a quantum phase transition in which the continuous translational symmetry of the higher temperature gas or liquid is spontaneously broken down to a much smaller discrete crystal group. The phonon is a massless Goldstone particle. The analogous Higgs particle would be a phonon sound wave with an energy gap at infinite wavelength. However, a single phonon is a collective normal mode of all the real atoms that form the crystal lattice. Now real phonons that propagate sound energy have a frequency that is the speed of sound divided by the wavelength. However, virtual phonons do not obey that relationship at all. Indeed, the crystal lattice itself is a Glauber coherent state of a huge uncertain number of VIRTUAL PHONONS all in the same single-phonon quantum state. These particular virtual phonons have zero frequency with finite wavelengths along the three directions of space that are determined by the particular discrete space-crystal group that is not spontaneously broken. A very similar thing happens for electromagnetic photons in the ordinary electrostatic Coulomb field e/r potential energy per unit test charge q in the rest frame of a point charge e where r is the distance between e and q. The longitudinal electrostatic field is a coherent Glauber state of a huge uncertain number of virtual photons of zero frequency with a whole continuum of wavelengths along the three dimensions of space.

4) We now have a unified conceptual framework. The space-time crystal is simply a Glauber coherent state of again virtual phonons but this time with a finite frequency and the same set of discrete wavelengths as in the space-crystal.



  1.  

     
  2. ·
  3. Friends
    3,989 Friends
    See All
  4. www.curiouss.com
    Comments made by Peter Higgs, Stephen Hawking, Frank Wilczek, Sean Carroll, Neil Tyson, Bill Nye etc., after the discovery of Higgs Boson.
    1 · · · Share
    • Marcus Urruh and 2 others like this.
      • Lynda Williams the experiment was designed to detect it. ho hum...
        17 hours ago ·
      • Leonardo Varesi The observed particle is surely Higgs boson?The experiment has founded that particle more than 100 GeV less of theory...
        2 hours ago ·
      • Jack Sarfatti Sure, but if it wasn't really there they would have gotten a null result only noise no signal exactly as I predict will UNLIKE THE HIGGS happen when attempts are made to measure real (on-mass-shell) DARK MATTER particles. I think DARK MATTER is entirely a quantum vacuum effect of ORDINARY PARTICLES in their virtual (off-mass-shell) state.
        6 minutes ago ·
      • Jack Sarfatti Same for DARK ENERGY - the flip side of DARK MATTER. The former from virtual bosons, the latter from virtual fermion-antifermion pairs both INSIDE THE QUANTUM VACUUM.
        5 minutes ago ·
      • Jack Sarfatti Technically in 3D with isotropy w = pressure/energy density = -1. Vacuum energy of virtual bosons is positive from Bose-Einstein quantum statistics, vacuum energy of virtual fermion-antifermion pairs is negative from Pauli exclusion principle. Lorentz invariance + equivalence principle imply that the leading term in induced gravity in Einstein's GR i.e. Guv + kTuv = 0 has T00 ~ (energy density )(1 + 3w) voila virtual bosons anti-gravitate from negative zero point quantum pressure whilst virtual fermion-antifermion pairs gravitate from positive zero point quantum pressure. Piece of cake - problem essentially solved by elementary battle-tested physics.
        2 seconds ago ·